The Science of Climate Conversations

Abstract

Dialogue-based approaches are crucially important for engaging the public about climate change. This entails going beyond a one-way information transfer to facilitating spaces in which diverse individuals can express their beliefs, emotions, opinions, and uncertainties about climate change in discussions with others. However, only a limited number of empirical studies have been published on best practices, dynamics, and effects of climate conversations. Although research on this topic is growing, information on this approach is still rare in comparison to studies that test audience responses to climate information or analyze climate-related discourses across different communication channels. In this article, the lead author reflects on how his PhD research evolved from testing climate change framing strategies to focusing on multi-directional discussions about climate change. We offer suggestions for advancing research on climate conversations across different communication channels and developing best practices for facilitating such discussions.

Introduction

When I started my PhD in Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford in 2019, I planned to research how scientists can most effectively communicate links between climate change and extreme weather events. Previously, for my master’s research, I had conducted an experiment testing how Americans respond to fearful versus hopeful climate change frames in short online videos (Ettinger, Walton, Painter, & DiBlasi, 2021). I assumed I would use a similar experimental design for my doctoral research. Examining audience responses to information is, after all, one of the most common methodological approaches in applied communications research: craft a message, test how audiences respond, apply the feedback, repeat. Building on the research of my supervisors (including James Painter, who has co-authored this article) and other scholars, I wanted to explore communication aspects of extreme event attribution techniques, which assess how climate change alters the likelihood and/or intensity of specific weather events (Stott et al., 2016).

However, as I began my initial literature review, I came across a quote attributed to Oscar Wilde: “Conversation about the weather is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” In the United Kingdom especially, discussing the ever-changing weather is always a reliable conversation topic, even if Wilde considered such attempts rather uninspired. Yet talking about the weather, at least in the context of climate change, is hardly mundane. As described extensively in the 2021 Working Group I report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change is altering the duration, frequency, and intensity of many types of extreme weather events around the world (IPCC, 2021). Climate change, combined with increased exposure and vulnerability to these events in many regions, is driving higher disaster-related costs (Ebi et al., 2021). Many researchers have argued that extreme weather experiences can increase climate change concerns among the public by making climate change more visible and tangible, although there are a variety of mixed results and nuances in relation to this hypothesis (Howe et al., 2019).

Reflecting on the concept of interpersonal conversations about the weather, I added some new terms to my literature searches: “dialogue,” “conversation,” “discussion,” and so on. I was hoping to find empirical research on the role of back-and-forth discussions in shaping how people perceive weather events and subjectively attribute them to climate change. At the time, I found surprisingly little empirical research examining discussions about weather or about climate change in general. This contrasted with hundreds of studies that have tested audience responses to different framings of climate change information presented in text, images, video, or virtual reality (Badullovich et al., 2020); tracked and analyzed climate-related news media coverage (e.g., Chinn et al., 2020; O’Neill et al., 2023); explored the role of television weathercasters and other types of messengers as climate change communicators (e.g., Maibach et al., 2022); assessed communication strategies of various climate policy actors and fossil fuel companies (e.g., Si et al., 2023); and other types of communication research. Researchers have also examined climate-related discourses on social media platforms (e.g., Fownes et al., 2018; Hautea et al., 2021). Social media platforms enable back-and-forth exchange, and analyses of posts can capture the prevalence of climate change discussions online. However, aggregating thousands or millions of posts, as typically done, may limit the ability to explore finer nuances of conversational exchanges and how these discussions evolve over a series of interactions among specific users.

These interdisciplinary studies have offered an array of valuable insights into communication aspects that influence climate change issue engagement among various actors. Nonetheless, literature in this area typically focuses on one-way communication of information, that is, from researchers to participants, journalists to news consumers, and governments to citizens. I struggled to find research into best practices, dynamics, and effects of multi-directional dialogue about climate change (with some exceptions, described below). This clearly represented a significant gap in climate change communication literature. Fortunately, this is now beginning to change.

The Importance of Climate Conversations

As social animals, speaking with others is fundamental to our daily lives. Dialogue is also crucial in shaping how we grapple with societal issues. The importance of conversation is, in part, why the field of science communication has, over the past several decades, called for a shift away from the knowledge deficit model to a public engagement approach (Leshner, 2003). The deficit model assumes that non-experts have deficits in their understanding, experts can provide information to fill these gaps, and audiences will absorb the information and act accordingly (Simis et al., 2016). Yet we are more complex than information processing machines; subjective factors such as our existing attitudes, political views, and cultural backgrounds influence how we respond to information and engage with societal issues (Suldovsky, 2017; Wibeck, 2014).

The public engagement approach, also known as the dialogue model, acknowledges these complexities, seeking to break down divisions between the scientific community and the public at large. This model acknowledges that diverse audiences may engage with information in distinct ways. At a more practical level, public engagement can entail direct exchange between experts and non-experts, such as through science exhibitions and fairs, town halls, citizen science projects, and citizen assemblies (Akin & Scheufele, 2017). This approach also recognizes there is more to scientific issues than science alone, seeking to create spaces in which individuals can express a wide range of attitudes, beliefs, emotional responses, ethical perspectives, moral values, and prior experiences related to pressing societal challenges (Dietz, 2013). Public views can (and should) inform decision-making about issues at the interface of science, technology, and society (Weingart et al., 2021).

Of course, there are good reasons not to say goodbye to the deficit model entirely. Transferring knowledge remains fundamental to education, journalism, and evidence-based decision-making. Information (and misinformation) can still inform public opinion. Yet the notion of dialogue—and specifically interpersonal discussions—is extremely important for a variety of contemporary societal issues and perhaps none more than climate change. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication tracks a variety of aspects of American attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors related to climate change, including how often individuals report speaking about climate change with others. Despite rising levels of concern about climate change in recent years, only “24% of Americans say that they hear people they know talk about global warming at least once a month” (Leiserowitz et al., 2022, p. 4). Like the agenda-setting effect of news media (Langer & Gruber, 2021), how often the public discusses a given issue can affect public opinion. Known as the spiral of silence, individuals are less likely to speak up about issues that they perceive others do not talk or care about, creating a vicious cycle (Maibach et al., 2016; Noelle-Neumann, 1993). This silence “is not in most cases a rejection of information per se, but the failure to integrate this knowledge into everyday life or to transform it into social action” (Norgaard, 2011, p. 11). Put simply, how are we to address climate change if we do not even talk about it?

Researchers have, in recent years, begun to recognize the crucial importance of conversations for climate action and conduct empirical research on the topic. Emerging findings suggest that correcting pluralistic ignorance—the perception that others do not care about climate change as much as they actually do—can increase willingness to engage in climate discussions (Geiger & Swim, 2016). Likewise, building foundational knowledge about climate change can also raise individual comfort to participate in climate discussions (Beery et al., 2021; Geiger et al., 2017). Climate activists often engage family members in climate conversations to galvanize others into climate activism, and children can foster stronger climate concerns among their parents through discussions (Fine, 2022; Lawson et al., 2019). Conversations can also help communicate the scientific consensus about human-driven climate change (Goldberg et al., 2019). Beyond persuasive aspects of discussions, climate cafés and discussion groups are growing in popularity as therapeutic resources for dealing with climate anxiety and other emotional challenges associated with climate change (Tait et al., 2022). Boudet et al. (2020) examined community-level discussions about climate change after extreme weather events, finding that the occurrence of these discussions was associated with attribution of the event to climate change, educational levels, and political opinions. Other researchers have offered evidence-based guidance for effective climate discussions, highlighting the importance of listening, finding common ground, and building trust, among other strategies (Kelly et al., 2020; Webster & Marshall, 2019).

Since starting my PhD, I have reoriented my approach to focus primarily on multi-directional communications in the context of extreme weather events and climate change. I facilitated focus groups to explore public perceptions of extreme event attribution and assess dynamics of extreme weather-related discussions (Ettinger, Walton, Painter, et al., 2021). In interviews with Australian adults who directly experienced bushfires, my coauthors and I found that conversations with fire experts helped affirm an understanding of how climate change exacerbates bushfires and that climate activists find solidarity in sharing stories about their bushfire experiences (Ettinger, Walton, Painter, Fielding, et al., 2023). Working with a healthcare researcher, we adapted the Teachable Moments Communication Process—a dialogue-based framework physicians use to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors among their patients (Flocke et al., 2012)—into a climate conversation framework (Ettinger, Walton, Painter, Flocke, Otto, 2023). Looking to translate theory into practice, with several other graduate students, I also co-founded a climate conversations initiative that tracked climate discussions among 1,000 people across 40 countries for the United Nations COP26 meeting (see www.talkclimatechange.org). We have published several best practice recommendations for facilitating climate conversations based on the outcomes of our campaign (Ettinger, McGivern, et al., 2023).

Further Developing Research on Climate Conversations

Research on climate conversations is only beginning. We still need to answer many questions: How do climate conversations differ across various settings, communication channels (in person, over private messages, on social media, etc.), for different purposes, and among people with distinct relationships (family members, friends, coworkers, etc.) and climate attitudes? How do dimensions of power and bias influence who participates in climate discussions? Can conversations draw in those who are not already interested in climate change? What are the range of outcomes of climate conversations and how can they be measured? What are the implications of artificial intelligence and large language models for climate-related discussions and for science communciation more generally? (Schäfer, 2023).

There are also promising ways of building on existing climate communication research by incorporating conversational considerations. For example, beyond examining the prevalence and content of news articles about climate change, researchers could explore how climate news media consumers share and discuss articles they read with others. Social media analyses could further incorporate indicators of conversational quality and dynamics of online exchanges about climate change (e.g., Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Foderaro & Lorentzen, 2022). Concepts from the field of linguistics could be applied to examine more subtle conversational cues such as delays between statements; how often interlocutors interrupt one another; and the tendency for individuals to unconsciously engage in similar mannerisms and speaking styles as discussion partners (aka, “the chameleon effect”), all of which have been shown to affect conversational experiences and outcomes (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Levitan et al., 2012). There is a need to further explore longitudinal effects of repeated climate conversations among the same people. Existing Conversational Analysis methods might also be useful for the climate context (Paulus et al., 2016).

To be sure, there are methodological challenges to navigate. Capturing in situ “real-world” conversations poses some limitations. To obtain data on climate discussions, researchers must rely on self-reports, record them, or directly observe them. The presence of a researcher or awareness that a conversation is being recorded may affect participant interactions. Analyzing social media discussions can bypass some of these issues; however, individuals may feel inhibited to fully express themselves in the public domain. Further research is needed to address these challenges and questions, which are equally applicable to conversations about other pressing societal issues, such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and public health behaviors. At a practical level, academic institutions offer communications training sessions that focus predominantly on giving presentations and media interviews—conversational skills such as active listening could also be added into these programs.

As people around the world increasingly face climate change impacts, finding ways to facilitate effective climate conversations will only grow in importance. Implementing conversational best practices could boost the effectiveness and outcomes of citizen assemblies on climate change and other deliberative bodies (Myers et al., 2017; Capstick et al., 2020). Likewise, governments and a wide range of organizations are currently engaging in internal discussions on whether and how they can commit to net zero emissions (Fankhauser et al., 2022)—training effective dialogue skills among climate advocates within organizations could aid these efforts.

We still need a one-way communication of the best available evidence to inform societal responses to climate change. However, my PhD journey has convinced me of the merits of multi-directional climate conversations: They pave the way to climate action, provide spaces for grappling with climate-related emotions, and help ensure more diverse voices are heard on arguably the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.